Originally posted by lucifershammer [b]So you agree that your concept of the soul is divisible.
No, I don't. The object may or may not be divisible -- the essence of the object (i.e. what it is) isn't. Either the essence of the object may continue to be instantiated in one of the two resulting objects, or you will have two new essences.
Your concept of the soul is gr soul?
The sun has an essence but, as it is not alive, that essence is not a soul.[/b]
I can't speak for what happens when the Thomistic concept of soul is applied to the soteriology of other religions; but Christianity holds to a physical resurrection of every human being -- which means that the essence has existence again and therefore the resurrected, everlasting being is very much conscious.
Sorry but this all sounds way too convenient...if every human is physically resurrected as you state here then where is the *physical* location of the place in which such physical humans will reside in the afterlife?...what is the after life for that matter? (if wish to deftly(?) jump ship here and make any statements that suggest a supernatural solution to avoid this particular problem then your soul concept falls foul of my earlier and not yet resolved questions)...what part does this rather vague and multi-purpose entity you refer to as 'essence' play in my life such that it will be resurrected upon my death, how is it any different to the essence of spiders that if I assume correctly do not get to go to heaven as we do?
Originally posted by twhitehead So resurrection is the recreation of a human being to match his existence at a particular point of time in his life? Which point of time exactly?
There is no definitive Church teaching on the matter. Peronally, I think it wouldn't be any particular point of time, but rather an ageless adult form.
Originally posted by Agerg Sorry but this all sounds way too convenient...if every human is physically resurrected as you state here then where is the *physical* location of the place in which such physical humans will reside in the afterlife?...what is the after life for that matter? (if wish to deftly(?) jump ship here and make any statements that suggest a supernatural solution to av rent to the essence of spiders that if I assume correctly do not get to go to heaven as we do?
Sorry but this all sounds way too convenient...if every human is physically resurrected as you state here then where is the *physical* location of the place in which such physical humans will reside in the afterlife?...what is the after life for that matter? (if wish to deftly(?) jump ship here and make any statements that suggest a supernatural solution to avoid this particular problem then your soul concept falls foul of my earlier and not yet resolved questions)...
No, it doesn't -- because your earlier questions dealt with the mind-body two substance problem.
Further, since your question is of a supernatural nature, why shouldn't it have a supernatural solution? If you want to stick to the strict philosophical notion of 'soul' according to Thomism, then your questions are meaningless as I said earlier -- the Thomistic 'soul' does not necessitate supernatural considerations.
what part does this rather vague and multi-purpose entity you refer to as 'essence' play in my life such that it will be resurrected upon my death, how is it any different to the essence of spiders that if I assume correctly do not get to go to heaven as we do?
Correction: it is you that will be resurrected after your death; that necessarily involves your soul.
As to what is different about your essence, clearly your essence is of a rational nature while the spider's is not. From a Christian theological standpoint, you (and therefore your essence as well) images God in a privileged way (because of its rational and even spiritual nature) that a spider's does not.
Originally posted by lucifershammer [b]Sorry but this all sounds way too convenient...if every human is physically resurrected as you state here then where is the *physical* location of the place in which such physical humans will reside in the afterlife?...what is the after life for that matter? (if wish to deftly(?) jump ship here and make any statements that suggest a supernatural so eged way (because of its rational and even spiritual nature) that a spider's does not.
hmm...just so we're singing form the same hymm sheet (as it were!), and so that I know how best to formulate my questions...exactly what arena do you choose to champion this notion of a soul...Do you remain purely in the Thomism camp so as to try and avoid any tricky spots with mind-body two substance problems, or do you hybridise it with other religious schools such that despite your suggestion that it need not carry any supernatural connotation, by virtue of some concepts such as heaven or hell this basis would be contradicted?
Originally posted by Agerg hmm...just so we're singing form the same hymm sheet (as it were!), and so that I know how best to formulate my questions...exactly what arena do you choose to champion this notion of a soul...Do you remain purely in the Thomism camp so as to try and avoid any tricky spots with mind-body two substance problems, or do you hybridise it with other religious schoo ...[text shortened]... onnotation, by virtue of some concepts such as heaven or hell this basis would be contradicted?
The first thing we need to be clear about is the distinction between philosophy and the application of philosophical concepts to theology.
Thomism is a philosophical system and the Thomistic notion of the soul does not necessitate supernatural connotations and does not suffer from the mind-body problem. One can then take this account of the soul and apply it to a body of doctrines such as Christianity or Islam or whatever. Sometimes the resultant theological system is incoherent (as twh's question about conscious disembodied souls shows) and sometimes it isn't. What is important to remember here is that the application of this notion of 'soul' to Christianity does not make the notion of 'soul' itself dependent on Christianity (quite obvious, really, but can be forgotten in the heat of a debate).
So the ball really is in your court. You've been asking questions of both natures (i.e. purely philosophical ones and ones that involve application of philosophical concepts to theological systems). Since your initial post assumed a modern Cartesian notion of 'soul', I thought it best to point out that alternative conceptions exist that do not suffer from the problems you raised. So do you want to discuss the Thomistic soul in its own right or the application of this concept of the soul to Christian doctrines?
Originally posted by lucifershammer The first thing we need to be clear about is the distinction between philosophy and the application of philosophical concepts to theology.
Thomism is a philosophical system and the Thomistic notion of the soul does not necessitate supernatural connotations and does not suffer from the mind-body problem. One can then take this account of the soul a in its own right or the application of this concept of the soul to Christian doctrines?
So the ball really is in your court. You've been asking questions of both natures (i.e. purely philosophical ones and ones that involve application of philosophical concepts to theological systems). Since your initial post assumed a modern Cartesian notion of 'soul', I thought it best to point out that alternative conceptions exist that do not suffer from the problems you raised. So do you want to discuss the Thomistic soul in its own right or the application of this concept of the soul to Christian doctrines?
lets just say that in keeping with my original post, I would prefer to discuss the application of this concept of the soul to Christian (you may choose to try Islam and such if you wish) doctrines. In an isolated Thomism system, you may have some grounds to try and reconcile the mind-body problems but step outside this system and apply it to other doctrines (such that it is pertainent to the eternal life after death hypothesis); then as you yourself have recognised...strong inconsistancies arise...Until such problems are reconciled my initial questions still stand un-answered simply because your key cannot fit both locks
Originally posted by Agerg lets just say that in keeping with my original post, I would prefer to discuss the application of this concept of the soul to Christian (you may choose to try Islam and such if you wish) doctrines. In an isolated Thomism system, you may have some grounds to try and reconcile the mind-body problems but step outside this system and apply it to other doctrines (s ...[text shortened]... ciled my initial questions still stand un-answered simply because your key cannot fit both locks
No, they're still irrelevant because (as I pointed out to twh), the Christian doctrine of "resurrection of the body" means that the mind-body problem still does not arise.
The Christian doctrine of resurrection goes back to the very beginnings of Christianity; while the Thomistic notion of 'soul' is essentially the Aristotelian conception. Now, if you think that the two strands meeting up is somehow "convenient" -- tough.
Originally posted by lucifershammer No, they're still irrelevant because (as I pointed out to twh), the Christian doctrine of "resurrection of the body" means that the mind-body problem still does not arise.
The Christian doctrine of resurrection goes back to the very beginnings of Christianity; while the Thomistic notion of 'soul' is essentially the Aristotelian conception. Now, if you think that the two strands meeting up is somehow "convenient" -- tough.
No, they're still irrelevant because (as I pointed out to twh), the Christian doctrine of "resurrection of the body" means that the mind-body problem still does not arise. In order for this to hold you made the statement earlier:
I can't speak for what happens when the Thomistic concept of soul is applied to the soteriology of other religions; but Christianity holds to a physical resurrection of every human being -- which means that the essence has existence again and therefore the resurrected, everlasting being is very much conscious. I followed up with the unanswered question:
if every human is physically resurrected as you state here then where is the *physical* location of the place in which such physical humans will reside in the afterlife?...lack of a physical location for this physical resurrection (the truth of this statement would engender a contradiction) would require a supernatural connotation (otherwise how could it not?) once it takes on this new (and for the sake of this thread, un-willing) characteristic it becomes very much subject to the mind/body problems you sought to avoid
The Christian doctrine of resurrection goes back to the very beginnings of Christianity; while the Thomistic notion of 'soul' is essentially the Aristotelian conception. Now, if you think that the two strands meeting up is somehow "convenient" -- tough. convenient answers don't really do myself or anybody else any good unless they can be soundly justified, explained, and stand up to extreme scrutiny
Originally posted by Agerg [b]No, they're still irrelevant because (as I pointed out to twh), the Christian doctrine of "resurrection of the body" means that the mind-body problem still does not arise. In order for this to hold you made the statement earlier:
I can't speak for what happens when the Thomistic concept of soul is applied to the soteriology of other religions; but good unless they can be soundly justified, explained, and stand up to extreme scrutiny[/b]
lack of a physical location for this physical resurrection ... would require a supernatural connotation ... once it takes on this new ... characteristic it becomes very much subject to the mind/body problems you sought to avoid
Except I never said that the physical resurrection would not have a physical location.
EDIT: As to "where", it could be anywhere. It might be on Earth; or maybe it's some other galaxy in the Universe. Maybe it's a different Universe altogether. I don't know.
Originally posted by lucifershammer [b]lack of a physical location for this physical resurrection ... would require a supernatural connotation ... once it takes on this new ... characteristic it becomes very much subject to the mind/body problems you sought to avoid
Except that I never said that the physical resurrection would not have a physical location.[/b]
Do you think bodies will be the same? Will resurrected people reproduce?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Do you think bodies will be the same? Will resurrected people reproduce?
No, the bodies will not be the same in the sense of being exactly like they are now. And no, people don't reproduce after being raised from the dead at the end of time.
Originally posted by lucifershammer [b]lack of a physical location for this physical resurrection ... would require a supernatural connotation ... once it takes on this new ... characteristic it becomes very much subject to the mind/body problems you sought to avoid
Except I never said that the physical resurrection would not have a physical location.
EDIT: As to "where", it c ome other galaxy in the Universe. Maybe it's a different Universe altogether. I don't know.[/b]
hmm 😉...So the afterlife, heaven/hell etc... is just as physical as the universe is now eh?...nothing supernatural about it! (wonder how many others would agree with you on that)...Tell you what Lucifershammer, I know you're the sort of person that would never reach this position purely by trying to avoid a tricky argument and so could you please post some links by others who also share this idea and have some evidence to justify this concept?..perhaps these people *will* know of the physical location of this sanctuary for the no longer living
if we humans are physical entities when we are resurrected, one would assume that by some mechanical process we can detect their presence no?...what tests could we perform, what apparatus would we require?
Also have a few other questions/problems but I shall ask them later...
Originally posted by lucifershammer There is no definitive Church teaching on the matter. personally, I think it wouldn't be any particular point of time, but rather an ageless adult form.
My problem with the whole concept is that according to your description, my soul is not me. It appears to be based on some pattern that my body is creating in the universe but it is not me. Christianity and most Christians that I have talked to have mentioned salvation for me. They never explained that it was not actually me that they were offering salvation for. Yes they used the word soul but implied very strongly that my consciousness would go along with it, not some new consciousness derived from some ageless adult form created from my 'essence'. This leads me to the conclusion that either you are wrong, or most Christians are extremely ignorant of the facts or they are extremely deceptive in their ways.
Originally posted by Agerg hmm 😉...So the afterlife, heaven/hell etc... is just as physical as the universe is now eh?...nothing supernatural about it! (wonder how many others would agree with you on that)...Tell you what Lucifershammer, I know you're the sort of person that would never reach this position purely by trying to avoid a tricky argument and so could you please post some li ...[text shortened]... tus would we require?
Also have a few other questions/problems but I shall ask them later...
You can simply Google "Apostle's Creed" to see that most Christians believe in a physical resurrection.
if we humans are physical entities when we are resurrected, one would assume that by some mechanical process we can detect their presence no?...what tests could we perform, what apparatus would we require?
I suppose you could just touch each other. That's what Thomas did.
soul???
10 Nov '06 13:274 edits
Back to Top